Disposed

Devi Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024WRIA/9131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging audit-related deduction from salary and pension, the Single Judge observed lack of hearing before the impugned order. The Court granted interim relief preventing recovery of the alleged excess.

What did the court decide?

Directed that no recovery shall be made from petitioner's dues; admitted dues including pensionary benefits shall be paid to petitioner.

Devi Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9131 of 2024 Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar,Mahendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Singh Raj

¶2

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 7 Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Raj, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 8 to 10.

¶4

Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 01.12.2023, 12.09.2024 and 13.09.2024 whereby deduction has been made from the amount of salary, pension, family pension and gratuity in view of some alleged audit objections raised with regard to excess payment being made to petitioner who has superannuated from service.

¶5

Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 8 to 10 on the basis of instructions, however, refutes the said fact and submits that the salary fixation was in accordance with the service regulations applicable upon petitioner w.e.f 01.01.1996.

¶6

However, a perusal of the impugned order prima facie indicates that adjustment/recovery is sought to be made on the basis certain audit objections with regard to excess payment provided to petitioner. It does not appear any opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order.

¶7

It has been submitted that petitioner's case is covered that judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶8

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶9

List this case in the week commencing 11.11.2024.

¶10

Until further order of this Court, it is directed that no recovery shall be made from the dues of petitioner. It is also directed that in the meantime admitted dues of petitioner shall be paid to him including pensionary benefits.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.10.2024/Satish

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devi Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Meera Srivastava and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Muneshwar vs U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and 3 Others

Amlesh Kumar Pandey vs Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Tomar, Director, Agricultural Directorate, U.P., Lko. and Another

Ashok Dhar Dwivedi, Thru. His Brother Rajesh Dhar Diwedi vs Shree Bhaskar Pandey, Joint Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Subhash Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others